The Replacements, Final Comparison

I'll just let those numbers speak for themselves. It's not a huge sample size, but there was no major effect on either GAA or shots against without Brodeur in the lineup. Nor, for that matter, was there much difference in New Jersey's goal scoring or winning percentage with or without the "best goalie in the NHL."

I think the "Brodeur saves 5+ shots per game" crowd has been permanently and decisively disproven by this season's results. For Marty to play that kind of sample size and to face just 0.5 shots per game fewer than his teammates is pretty good evidence that the range of shots against is fairly narrow. I do think that the "true" shots against differential between Brodeur and Clemmensen is likely more than 0.5 shots per game, as Brodeur happened to be the man in net during New Jersey's late season swoon, but the results certainly are in line with my estimate of +/- 1 shot per game on average as the goaltender's effect.

I think there is a substantial difference between Brodeur and Clemmensen in skills like rebound control and puckhandling. However, there is not much of a net effect on the team as a whole because the rest of the skaters adjust their play at least somewhat to the particular goaltender. That explains why we don't usually see much of an impact in the shots against and GAA data from goalie to goalie.

I'm not going to go much farther than that in terms of assigning significance to these results. Brodeur is a better goalie than Scott Clemmensen or Kevin Weekes. The numbers may have been similar, but Brodeur faced more difficult shot quality against and likely was affected to some degree by his long injury layoff. I suppose this season supports my overall position on Brodeur, but it is by no means the main piece of evidence in the argument. The results do show fairly plainly that New Jersey is an easy place to play goal, but that should have been obvious to begin with.

54 comments:

Anonymous
said...

everything about this "sample" seems to be pretty useless. even comparing the effects of shot prevention is silly because 1) this 30 game sample size hardly accounts for anything more than 2/5 of an injury plagued season, and 2) it comes in a era where puckhandling is limited. brodeur played the majority of his career in an era where the goalie could freely roam from the net and impact shots allowed. not to mention about half of his time back since injury came while new jersey was slumping both offensively and defensively, so again trying to draw any conclusion from data influenced from facing 40+ shots a game on a team that had basically clinched a playoff spot a month early is hardly significant, nor consistent with the rest of his career results.

you seem so desperate to prove your stance on brodeur to be correct that it seems you overlook the most obvious of things. is it easier to play in goal in nj? possibly, there seems to be consistent evidence of that. does the fact that in 30 games over the course of an injury filled season brodeurs results for both stats and shots against were similar to his backups have any relevance? hardly. possibly the only thing that can be withdrawn is that there is obviously a different game plan teams have when playing against brodeur than they do against other goalies, which is something that would developed over a long period of time time in which the decision to play this way is based off of his prior success.

Anonymous, re: "injury-plagued season": yes, Brodeur was injured, but how does that affect his stats when he was playing? Did he come back too early from the injury? It's possible, but seems unlikely, given that the Devils were doing fine with him out and the first priority had to be getting Brodeur back healthy for the playoffs.

It's also unlikely to be an NFL-type situation where the starter is afraid of losing his job and comes back before his injury is healed. Brodeur enjoys too much job security for that.

you seem so desperate to prove your stance on brodeur to be correct that it seems you overlook the most obvious of things. Maybe so. I'll defer to your judgment here, as you seem to be an expert in overlooking things, considering how willing you are to completely throw out results because of a few tangential variables.

Let's give Brodeur the benefit of the doubt. Let's excuse him and the rest of his team for everything that happened after he broke Roy's record on May 17:

Brodeur: 2.06 GAA, 26.9 SA/60Backups: 2.40 GAA, 29.3 SA/60

Difference: 0.34 GAA, 2.4 SA/60

Maybe Brodeur has a 2 shot per game impact. That's about what I was expecting, given that we would expect Brodeur to be near the top of the range and Clemmensen to be near the bottom. Even the evidence from the most optimistic scenario suggests that I'm right.

possibly the only thing that can be withdrawn is that there is obviously a different game plan teams have when playing against brodeur than they do against other goalies, which is something that would developed over a long period of time time in which the decision to play this way is based off of his prior success.This here is the whole point. When teams switch goalies, the rest of the team plays differently and other team changes its strategy as well. The result is to reduce the effect of the change. If something is replaceable, then it isn't as valuable, and it becomes more an issue of style than substance.

"If something is replaceable, then it isn't as valuable, and it becomes more an issue of style than substance."

that statement in and of itself is so ambiguous that it is not really saying much. Dominick Hasek was possibly the best goalie to ever play. Yet Buffalo didnt win with him, and didnt win without him. I guess what you are referring to was the style by which the lost. Same thing happened in Detroit. Hasek was clearly replaceable in Deroit, as they won both before him, and without him last season. Meanwhile before Brodeur was in NJ, the franchise was a joke. Coincidentally the season he joins the team they make it further than they ever have before, and have been a perennial contender ever since. If you are talking about truly irreplaceable players, then the list is narrowed to maybe 2 or 3 players who have ever played the game, all of which being skaters. By your definition of replaceable, just about every one of the "great" goalies is not valuable. I do not see what is so hard to understand in terms of evaluating goalies in relation to their teams, as hockey is a team sport, and has to be evaluated as such. You openly admit to teams changing their strategy dependent upon who their goalie is, so who is to say Hasek would have been as successful as he was outside of Buffalo. Who is to say that Roy would not have won more often if he went to Detroit instead on Colorado? Most of this work is based off assuming teams, and goalies, and backups are equal. Comparing save percentage to league average assumes that the caliber of goalies during those years was equal. Right now for instance, it is fair to say that despite the league average save percentage being relatively high, that the overall talent at the goalie position is just as low as it was in the 80's. Outside of Brodeur, and Luongo, there really are not any other clear cut standouts. Outside the 1-2 guys, 3-10 are pretty much miles behind, and completely interchangeable. Miller, Nabakov, Ward, Backstrom, Lundqvist, etc, etc, are nothing when compared to the depth of goaltending in the 90's.

that statement in and of itself is so ambiguous that it is not really saying much.Sorry, I was referring to non-save skills like puckhandling and rebound control, not to overall goalie play. I should have been more clear.

Yet Buffalo didnt win with him, and didnt win without him. I guess what you are referring to was the style by which the lost. Same thing happened in Detroit. Hasek was clearly replaceable in Deroit, as they won both before him, and without him last season.Wrong. You seem to be measuring everything by playoff success, but even in that case you are wrong.

In the eight years before Dominik Hasek became their starting goalie, the Buffalo Sabres only won one playoff series. That is one less than the "joke franchise" in New Jersey won over the same time span.

With Hasek, they won 7 playoff series in 8 years. Since then, they have won 4 in 7 years.

Similarly, the Detroit Red Wings didn't make it past the second round even once between 1998 and 2007, except when they had Dominik Hasek in net (2002 and 2007). Hasek was a difference-maker, like few other goalies have ever been.

Right now for instance, it is fair to say that despite the league average save percentage being relatively high, that the overall talent at the goalie position is just as low as it was in the 80's.That would be a completely outrageous thing to say. The overall talent at the NHL goalie position has never been higher.

Outside the 1-2 guys, 3-10 are pretty much miles behind, and completely interchangeable. Miller, Nabakov, Ward, Backstrom, Lundqvist, etc, etc, are nothing when compared to the depth of goaltending in the 90's.This is comical. Brodeur barely outplayed Scott Clemmensen this year, he is not miles ahead of the other top goalies. There is very little difference among the league's best.

The 1990s had some great top-end talent, I agree, but the depth was not nearly as good as now.

Look at the spread of save percentages in the 1990s compared to the 2000s, it's not even remotely comparable. There were 7 guys who played 300+ games at .890 or worse in the 1990s, the same decade as Hasek was posting a .926. There was a sharp increase in save percentages towards the end of the decade, but those are still huge gaps.

Compare that to the 2000s: Dan Cloutier is the only guy with 300+ GP below .900. Every single other goalie falls between Marc Denis (.902) and Roberto Luongo (.919). In today's NHL, there are more quality starting goalies than spots to fill.

Just think about it - the league average save percentage is close to pre-lockout levels this year, despite a more open game, more power plays, and limitations on goalie equipment. How could that possibly be the case unless the goalies were substantially better?

now everybody just plays the butterfly. its a skill less style for the most part. that is why there are guys leading the league in save percentage on year, and then on the other end in a few years. kipprusoff, turco and nabakov come to mind as radiant examples. you can talk about what is effective, or what is skill, but it is hardly skill to wear gigantic pads and just sit on you knees all game. guys like brodeur, or hasek, belfour, etc, actually relied on skills such as reflexes, coming out and challenging shooters, stacking the pads, and then incorporating the butterfly when useful. even roy, who in my opinion is marginalized by people when referred to as a pure butterfly goalie, had amazing reflexes and challenged like few others. now just about all goalies play an identical, boring, and practically talentless position. that is not the same in my book. are the results better, it appears so, but if you are really trying to evaluate who the best goalies where as you claim to be, then evaluating them by skills is the correct way to go, not luck. i have little respect for guys like manny legace, or henrik lundqvist who play exclusively from the butterfly with both terrible reflexes, horrendous rebound control, no intention of leaving the crease to challenge shooters, and mediocre puckhandling skills relying solely on the team in front of them to keep shots to the perimeter.

"In the eight years before Dominik Hasek became their starting goalie, the Buffalo Sabres only won one playoff series. That is one less than the "joke franchise" in New Jersey won over the same time span.

With Hasek, they won 7 playoff series in 8 years. Since then, they have won 4 in 7 years."

The objective however is not to win series, it is to win cups. As YOU mentioned all Hasek did in Buffalo was change the style in which they lost.

"Similarly, the Detroit Red Wings didn't make it past the second round even once between 1998 and 2007, except when they had Dominik Hasek in net (2002 and 2007). Hasek was a difference-maker, like few other goalies have ever been."

No team wins every year. Detroit won in 97, and 98 without Hasek. They then won in 02 with problem one of the best teams ever assembled. Then last year they won in spite of Hasek, with OSGOOD. The point is, as you were saying is that Hasek was replaceable in Buffalo, because they never won anything. Similarly, he was and has been replaceable in Detroit as they both won with, without and sometimes despite of him. New Jersey never won before Brodeur, and I doubt they are going to reel of 3 or 4 cups in the 10-15 years following his eventual retirement.

"now everybody just plays the butterfly. its a skill less style for the most part."

Please tell me you aren't a goalie. A skill-less style?

Do you know who plays a really nice technical butterfly style? Andrew Raycroft. Do you know who is the worst goalie in the NHL? See above.

"i have little respect for guys like manny legace, or henrik lundqvist who play exclusively from the butterfly with both terrible reflexes, horrendous rebound control, no intention of leaving the crease to challenge shooters, and mediocre puckhandling skills relying solely on the team in front of them to keep shots to the perimeter."

If you think anybody is in the NHL with horrible reflexes, you have no idea what you are talking about. You're grading guys based on style, not effectiveness. Does the puck go in more on those guys than other goalies? No it does not. So what is the problem?

Are you a New Jersey Devils fan? Would you get offended if I say that your team sucks because they play a boring style? If so, then on behalf of the goaltending community I'll just say that's what it feels like when people make ignorant comments about optimal goaltending techniques.

"The objective however is not to win series, it is to win cups. As YOU mentioned all Hasek did in Buffalo was change the style in which they lost."

Actually, all Hasek did was make his team tens of millions of dollars by taking them to the 3rd and 4th rounds of the playoffs when they wouldn't have made the playoffs in the first place without having him in net.

If you want to consider all efforts that don't end up winning the Stanley Cup to be worthless and equal, then you and I aren't going to find much common ground on this one.

And once more, to be clear, my comments about style were related to puckhandling and rebound control and crease management and other non-save skills, not overall goaltending play.

"if you are really trying to evaluate who the best goalies where as you claim to be, then evaluating them by skills is the correct way to go, not luck."

I could not possibly disagree more with this statement. It is absolutely false, and is one of the reasons why many people get goaltending evaluation so completely wrong. That would be like throwing out goals and assists and ranking players by skating speed and shot velocity.

Evaluating goalies based on results is the only way to go. Don't make the amateur mistake of confusing inefficiency with skill. Elite goalies are both skilled and talented, whether or not they choose to make most of their saves on their feet or their knees.

"...it is hardly skill to wear gigantic pads and just sit on you knees all game."

As opposed to wearing gigantic pads & playing a stand-up style all game?

It should be remembered that Brodeur was by far THE most vocal goalie who opposed the reduction in the size of the goalie equipment. I suspect he (& all other goalies) liked the attention goalies began getting as the goalie equipment ballooned out of control & shutouts increased. Besides, he wasn't going to pass Sawchuk's S.O. record by only getting 5 or 6 per yr, right?

The goalie equipment is still too big... the #1 thing the NHL needs to do is make it all smaller... back to 10" leg pads & smaller gloves & blockers, please!

"As opposed to wearing gigantic pads & playing a stand-up style all game?"

Is that a joke? Like really? I know you actually have to buy a ticket, or turn on the TV to pick this stuff up(its not something that shows up on a score sheet), but wearing huge equipment is the last thing a standup goalie wants to do as it defeats the purpose of playing standup. It has only recently become effective to wear gigantic equipment because of the popularity of the butterfly position in which all that is required is the lower body strength required to push off when moving laterally.

Statman, the day you say one thing positive about Brodeur is the day I might start looking past your obvious bias against him. Until then I guess it would be too much to expect of you to know that since Brodeur has been in the league, he has consistently worn the some of the smallest, if not the smallest gear out of any goalie. That said, he is a goalie, and at one point was head of the committee in charge of speaking up against equipment regulations. But to think he has worn anything but the smallest of pads since playing in the league is silly, and shows how little you probably have seen him play.

CG... why have you chanced your tune? Didnt you write something pertaining to Kurri and Anderson not "really" being that good despite all their goals and points? Why wouldnt we evaluate a player on his actual skill as opposed to luck or circumstance? Name a butterfly goalie who has consistently been good since 2000 not named Luongo? Playing the butterfly for the most part is luck. Even Roy stated this when asked as he said "When you go down you are playing the odds that 70% of shots taken are mid net or lower, and 40% of shots taken are towards the middle of the net". Benoit Allaire said pretty much the same thing. The truly skilled guys like Roy used skill to compliment the style, however too many guys these days just sit on their knees all game and hope not their team keeps things to the perimeter where it is easy to play the angles.

"Didn't you write something pertaining to Kurri and Anderson not 'really' being that good despite all their goals and points?"

Maybe, I don't recall that but it is possible. I believe in evaluating players based on their individual impact, not their team results. Guys like Kurri and Anderson obviously benefitted from playing with great teammates and that should be taken into account. Just the same as a goalie playing behind a great defence.

"Why wouldn't we evaluate a player on his actual skill as opposed to luck or circumstance?"

Because skill is not the same thing as performance. Some goalies are more athletic than others, some are better skaters than others, some are better puckhandlers than others, some have better reflexes than others, some are more agile or flexible or coordinated or have better vision or are better or worse at a hundred different skills, all of which contribute to their ability to play the position.

At the end of the day, though, the only thing that matters is how many pucks hit the back of the net in how many tries, adjusted for the difficulty of scoring chances and taking into account any extraneous goalie effects.

A guy can have terrific lateral movement, for example, but can be overplaying the puck or sliding out of the play. Or he can have tremendous agility and athleticism, but be suspectible to letting pucks go through him. Or he can be great at firing the puck down the ice but prone to giving it away. There are dozens of examples of how skill doesn't necessarily translate into performance. At the other end of the spectrum, you have goalies that don't seem to do anything spectacularly well except for prevent the other team from scoring.

"Playing the butterfly for the most part is luck."

Not at all. You can be just as reactive in the butterfly as from your feet. It depends on whether you maintain active hands or not, if you move your torso in the direction of the shot, or if you use your legs or your stick to direct the puck or just let it rebound in front of you.

There really is no such thing as a butterfly style. The butterfly is a save movement. All goalies stand up on some saves and go down on others, and there are situations where either is the preferred movement. The net is wider than it is tall, and goalies are taller than they are wide. It makes simple geometric sense that you cover more net when you drop your torso below the crossbar and extend your coverage along the ice, and all goalies will do that in response to specific tactical situations.

Goalies differ in the frequency that they go down and in their tendencies to block or react to specific shots. For example, some goalies will go down to catch a point shot while others stay standing, but both are obviously reacting to the play.

A goalie using a predominantly blocking style is playing the odds on close and mid-range shots. Then again, all goaltending is playing the odds, at least to some degree, because even elite athletes have limited reaction speeds and reactive saves are impossible from close distances.

Let's say there is a pass across the crease for a close-in one-timer. The butterfly guy will slide across the net whereas someone like Brodeur might stack the pads. You would probably be a lot more impressed by the pad stack because you think it requires more "skill", but they are both just filling net and hoping the puck hits them.

I certainly agree that Vokoun has is probably one of the more underrated guys in the league, however if we are going to get into evaluating team effects, I think there needs to be work done determining the effects of playing in places like Nashville or Florida. Is it just coincidence that Florida has pretty much year in and year out had goalies post relatively high save percentages despite facing a lot of shots that are "supposedly" of high quality. Vokoun was great in Nashville, Dan Ellis was great, than then fell off only to have Rinne come in a post a high save percentage. Luongo is no doubt a great goalie, but why has his save percentage dropped despite playing for a much improved defensive team in Vancouver? There seems to be a general consensus that Florida and Nashville are bad defensive team, but I find it hard to beleive that just about every goalie these teams had had for quite a while post impressive numbers. Same thing with Minnesota.

Huet did no better than Carey Price last year, and was actually worse than Khabibulin this year, and has somehow managed to lose the starting job despite being given every chance to take it. He has also never played more than maybe 40-45 games a season. That does not really add up if you are talking about a good goalie. I can understand a guy playing 55-60 every year, but 40?

As far as the butterfly position itself, I am very familiar with it. It is very dependent upon positioning. While some use it more than others, there are some goalies who are on their knees the second the puck is within 30 feet of the net. I cant see how this is skill. In fact, guys like Lundqvist or Legace, have absolutely terrible glove and blocker hands. If you have played hockey, I am sure you've seen those shooter tutors in which you are encouraged to aim for corners. If you put one of those things in net for a game, would you call that a good goalie? There is a difference between blocking shots and making saves. Defenseman can block shots, but for goalies it is alot more dependent on how you do it. Some of the guys mentioned have terrible rebound control. Well the truth is, the second there is a rebound, it becomes the teams job to compensate. A goalie who can control rebounds is more skilled than a guy who just blocks a shot and then is reliant on his defenseman to keep from letting the other team get to the puck. Your can measure it however you want to, but how do you measure how adept certain teams and certain players can effectively/ineffectively clear rebounds and in what situations they are better/worse at it. Again you are trying to turn hockey stats into golf stats, and there is no way to do that. A team sport can only be looked at as such, and it is silly to try to break things down by pretending their is no team effect on the things you are using as statistical measures.

I agree that a good defence can make a worse goalie look good, and that an active goalie will be able to make some saves that a blocking goalie won't, but if two goalies face identical shots and one makes a glove save while the other one goes into a block and has it deflect off his shoulder, to me that's the same thing.

"A team sport can only be looked at as such, and it is silly to try to break things down by pretending their is no team effect on the things you are using as statistical measures."

I'm not pretending there is no team effect, and I don't think we will ever be able to quantify every single tiny thing that happens in a hockey game. But I don't think we have to do, because most of those tiny things that happen are merely noise or simply unimportant in the big picture. I am trying to assess what are the most important elements of goaltending, to try to refine the way we measure and track them, and to try to remove team effects as best as possible. What is left after that will give us a pretty good picture of the performance of a goalie.

If you don't agree that is possible, then you are entitled to your opinion, but I'm not sure this blog is for you. Maybe someone else will start up "Giguere is a Fraud: Breaking Down Goaltending Subjectively by Style".

"...wearing huge equipment is the last thing a standup goalie wants to do as it defeats the purpose of playing standup."

Yeah.... right. Why would a standup goalie wear any pads at all, then? By your theory, standup goalies should just wear skater (fwds & d'men) equipt for maximum benefit. Why doesn't Marty wear 10" leg pads? For that matter, how about 8"? Why doesn't he wear an old pair of Scott Stevens' legpads & shoulder pads? haha As a standup goalie he'd also want his blocker, glove & general midsection to be as big as possible.

"It has only recently become effective to wear gigantic equipment because of the popularity of the butterfly position."

No, since the mid 90's goalie equipment for goalies of ALL styles has become larger & larger.

"...since Brodeur has been in the league, he has consistently worn the some of the smallest, if not the smallest gear out of any goalie."

Obviously wrong, unless you think he is 6'1" & 260 lbs with just a thin layer of padding overtop? I would be interested in seeing your official documentation of the size of goalie equipment of all goalies who have played in the NHL the past 15 yrs.

By padding & equipt I'm referring to everything the goalies wear - leg pads, blockers, gloves, & abdominal & shoulder pads. It's all too big, & Brodeur publicly whined several times about it being no fair that the competition committee was 'picking on goalies'. When the avg goalie has a GAA of about 2.60 & several goalies are playing 65-70+ games & some are getting 10+ SO's per season & it's almost impossible to score off a sharp angle slapshot (a la Guy Lafleur), the scoring needs to be increased (in my opinion).

If your theory is correct, you'd think Brodeur would be all for limits on goalie equipt as it would to be the benefit of standup goalies & at the expense of the butterfly goalies (as you define them).

I'm merely pointing out facts, yet once again you rally to poor Marty's defense & assume everyone is out to get him. I have no personal feelings about Marty, or any goalie for that matter. (I do think that the huge padding has made their jobs much easier than years ago.) The most curious thing are the fanboys who furiously try to counter any objective look at things that appears to denigrate their heroes. Lighten up already. The responses are so predictable.

"Secondly, Florida's goalies have not posted relatively high save percentages. Luongo and Vokoun did much better than everyone else there, because they are two of the best goalies in the league."

Then what about Craig Anderson? I am not including Luongo's backups for the reason that he played 65+ games more often than not, leaving that sample size ridiculously small plus in myopinion outdated if dating back to a tea from 2000-2002, but a one million year old Ed Belfour even saw his numbers improve pretty significantly when he left Toronto for Florida.

"No more so than any other goalie stance. Positioning is very important for goalies, whether they are down, up, or sideways"

True, positioning is important, however there is plenty more to goaltending outside of positioning, and frankly positioning is one of the easiest parts of goaltending, and is more so effective on a strong defensive team that keeps the puck to the perimeter.

"You're underrating Lundqvist here. His hands are certainly not terrible, both subjectively as well as measured by the only objective data I've seen by shot location."

First, I would question whether or not that data has accounted for the obvious reporting bias at MSG, then I would question the sample size of the data taken, and then third I would politely suggest you watch Lundqvist play. If you are familiar with Rangers fans, you will know that Lundqvist is a god in their eyes, who can never do any wrong. Yet not even they will go as far to say that his ability to cover the top of the net is anywhere near average, with his glove hand being pretty close to terrible.

"If you don't agree that is possible, then you are entitled to your opinion, but I'm not sure this blog is for you. Maybe someone else will start up "Giguere is a Fraud: Breaking Down Goaltending Subjectively by Style"."

Or maybe Giguere is just the latest goalie to fall victim to probability, and smaller equipment. A good goalie should be consistent. There is no reason somebody who is supposedly as good as Giguere was regarded as being, sees his goals against average rise nearly a full goal, and his save percentage go from leading the league to one of the worst in the league, over a full season without changing teams. Same thing with Turco, same thing with Kiprusoff, same thing throughout Nabokov's career. Is it just coincidence that the same year they significantly cut back of the size of goalie equipment Gigeure, Turco, Kiprusoff, Nabakov, Price, Osgood, and Ellis have awful seasons? All of those guys were either considered to be among the best or soon to be premier goalies in the league. Next year they are supposedly modifying it to each goalie, so it will be interesting to see how Lundqvist fares, but if the past 2 seasons are any indication, I would say not very well.

"Yeah.... right. Why would a standup goalie wear any pads at all, then? By your theory, standup goalies should just wear skater (fwds & d'men) equipt for maximum benefit. Why doesn't Marty wear 10" leg pads? For that matter, how about 8"? Why doesn't he wear an old pair of Scott Stevens' legpads & shoulder pads? haha As a standup goalie he'd also want his blocker, glove & general midsection to be as big as possible."

Wow, I dont know if such a pissy little sourpuss response like that even merits a response, but I'll hint at you that there are reasons for wearing proper sized equipment, mainly protect.

"Obviously wrong, unless you think he is 6'1" & 260 lbs with just a thin layer of padding overtop? I would be interested in seeing your official documentation of the size of goalie equipment of all goalies who have played in the NHL the past 15 yrs."

Again, you ignorance is obvious. Google Brodeur pad sizing and get back to me. He is wearing essentially the same exact equipment he wore in the minors in 1992, and that include everything, not just leg pads.

"If your theory is correct, you'd think Brodeur would be all for limits on goalie equipt as it would to be the benefit of standup goalies & at the expense of the butterfly goalies (as you define them)."

Except for the fact that once again you are not aware of the fact that Brodeur was for awhile the goalie who was head of the competition committee and therefore responsible for voicing the opinions of the other goalies. have you ever heard of the NHLPA? One guy is not going to selfishly undermine the entire group in which he is a member of.

The leg pad regulations were modified for the 2008-09 season, which coincidentally is the same year plenty of the "premier" butterfly goalies have had bad years. Even Lundqvist who still has a decent overall save percentage probably due to the ridiculously exaggerated MSG numbers, has terrible numbers on the road. And oh yea, Manny Legace no longer has a job.

Anyway, protection is not the only reason a goalie (including Brodeur) wears equipment that is larger than that worn 15 yrs ago.

And "Google Brodeur pad sizing and get back to me" ?? haha pleaasssee.... the last thing I want to do is wade through a million rants by people biased for or against a particular goalie (& I do not consider myself biased, but I can't say the same about you).

Well let's see... here's Marty sticking up for other goalies:

"But according to last season's Stanley Cup champion goaltender and Vezina winner, Martin Brodeur of the Devils, the rule is misguided. "It's got to be proportional to your body" says Brodeur, who wears 34-inch pads. "That's why the rule should be individual. The advantage of a little goalie wearing 38 is bigger than a bigger goalie wearing 38.""

Ooops. He's actually trying to limit the size of pads worn by goalies smaller than him, so that taller/bigger goalies like he regain some advantage. D'oh!

Say, why don't you provide us with a copy of a picture of Brodeur '92? His pads have obviously become larger; unless you are asserting that he was wearing illegal (too large) padding earlier in his career.

Haha, so after stating you are not going to go look up the sizing of his equipment, you then go find a quote from 2003 in which you have the answer? Wow. If that is the case, then you should also know that around 2005 Brodeur took over as head of the competition committee representing goalie, and that is when he started supporting larger equipment.

If you want to play dumb, then there is nothing that can be said to help you. Otherwise, stop assuming that everything in the world is overtly "pro-Brodeur" or people " angrily contesting" an admittedly "contrarian viewpoint".

Equipment sizing can easily be found, just as you did moments ago. So please stop crying.

I don't know, to be honest. His AHL numbers weren't too bad, so he could be a good goalie who hasn't had a shot yet. Or he might have gotten lucky. Or maybe Florida's recent shot quality numbers are understated. I'd like to see a bit more of him to get a better sense of his level of play.

"a one million year old Ed Belfour even saw his numbers improve pretty significantly when he left Toronto for Florida."

They improved because he had a terrible year his last year in Toronto. Anything is going to be an improvement on .892. Belfour's Florida numbers were well below his overall numbers in Toronto.

"I would politely suggest you watch Lundqvist play."

From what I've seen, he has a stiff glove, and he tends to block more than most goalies. I'm not saying he is one of the best, and in terms of purely catching the puck he is probably well below average, but I think he gets his glove or shoulder on enough shots that it is overdoing it to call him terrible. Maybe we're just arguing semantics a bit here.

If Lundqvist is so terrible high glove, how come he is one of the best goalies in the league at shootouts? The shooters should be able to just score at will upstairs, but they don't have much success doing so.

"Is it just coincidence that the same year they significantly cut back of the size of goalie equipment Gigeure, Turco, Kiprusoff, Nabakov, Price, Osgood, and Ellis have awful seasons? All of those guys were either considered to be among the best or soon to be premier goalies in the league."

Considered among the best? By who? Certainly not me. Ellis looked like a fluke all the way (unsustainably high save percentage on the PK), Osgood is an average goalie, Turco hasn't been a top goalie since before the lockout, Nabokov is overrated and had an identical save percentage in 2008-09 as he did in 2007-08, and Kiprusoff has been declining for several years now. That leaves only Giguere and Price that surprised me by having poor seasons. Young goalies like Price don't always have a straight-line development, and I think Giguere just had an off-year, something that happens in professional sports. Even top goalies and athletes can have off-years. Patrick Roy's 1992-93 season comes to mind, for example.

There are plenty of goalies who had career years this year as well, guys like Thomas, Ward, Miller, Khabibulin, and Clemmensen. The league average save percentage was pretty much the same this year (.908) compared to last year (.909). That's why the equipment argument is not particularly convincing.

Read what I said. I said I wasn't going to read through a million posts. The 4th or 5th link on google had the quote of Brodeur I used.

I want to see actual evidence.

You come to this site & make assertions that simply aren't true, & when they are proven false you jump to the next beef you have without any acknowledgement of the statistical inaccuracies you use... you argue so much one almost needs a flowchart to follow you, haha, you often lose/stray from the entire point of each article... you make personal insults... you obviously have some personal fanboy issues going on... per your frequent rants against Lundqvist... hmm, they say that hardcore NJ fans hate the Rangers, haha. No one else continually brings up Lundqvist & how he is supposedly so bad etc.

"If Lundqvist is so terrible high glove, how come he is one of the best goalies in the league at shootouts? The shooters should be able to just score at will upstairs, but they don't have much success doing so."

This seems to be another thing that is often weighted too heavily. Shootout success. While Lundqvist, and a couple other goalies, particularly Garon, do have good overall save percentages in the shootout, I believe a lot of that is misleading in terms of assessing their overall skill, mainly because a miss in the shootout is considered a save regardless of whether it is on goal or not. Because of Lundqvist's style of play (mainly his refusal to challenge shooters, instead sitting on his knees way back in the crease) he is very effective on dekes. If you watch him in the shootout, he is exceptional when it comes to out waiting the shooter on a deke. I do not know what kind of stats are available, but from what I have seen over the past few years, he is not particularly good when players just walk in and shoot especially up high, but even down low. However, far too often in a showboating skills contest designed to generate Youtube hits, guys still try to deke even though the odds are not with them.

"Considered among the best? By who? Certainly not me. Ellis looked like a fluke all the way (unsustainably high save percentage on the PK), Osgood is an average goalie, Turco hasn't been a top goalie since before the lockout, Nabokov is overrated and had an identical save percentage in 2008-09 as he did in 2007-08, and Kiprusoff has been declining for several years now. That leaves only Giguere and Price that surprised me by having poor seasons. Young goalies like Price don't always have a straight-line development, and I think Giguere just had an off-year, something that happens in professional sports. Even top goalies and athletes can have off-years. Patrick Roy's 1992-93 season comes to mind, for example."

True sometimes guys just have off years, but the drop off for some of these guys is pretty substantial. In terms of Ellis, many though he was the next big thing, especially after last season. Speaking of an unsustainably high pk save percentage, have you checked out that guy who plays in New York? With Price, it is hard to tell how good he really is, but he too seems to be another one of these guys who has relied far to much on just dropping to his knees the second the puck enters the zone. The point here is that either these guys are effected by equipment reductions, or they are simply incapable of being consistent for more than 4 or 5 years or even possibly both, which in either case should cause one to appreciate somebody who has been exceptionally consistent without huge equipment for 15 years.

Statman stop crying please. You claimed Brodeur used huge pads and asked to see proof Brodeur wears small pads. I told you were to find it, and you did. Why are you complaining?

"Read what I said. I said I wasn't going to read through a million posts. The 4th or 5th link on google had the quote of Brodeur I used."

Yes, and what was the first, second and third link that came up? Talk and being selective.

And yes I must be Devil fan if I see Brodeur as the best correct? Then I also guess everybody at the NHL Network, TSN, RDS, and ESPN must also be Devil fans.I don't see how using Lundqvist as an example, along with quite a few other goalies, turns into a "rant" or what ever you want to call it. I guess you could also conclude I am a Blue Jacket fan cuz I pointed out Legace? Or that I am an Oiler fan cuz I pointed out a decline in Kiprusoff? You seem to lack consistency not only in your statistical evaluation, but also in your logic.

"...since Brodeur has been in the league, he has consistently worn the some of the smallest, if not the smallest gear out of any goalie."

"But to think he has worn anything but the smallest of pads since playing in the league is silly, and shows how little you probably have seen him play."

"He is wearing essentially the same exact equipment he wore in the minors in 1992, and that include everything, not just leg pads."

Where is the proof behind these statements?

Simply saying "google it" is not acceptable. Give me a break!

If you have definitively concluded that Brodeur has been wearing the "some of the smallest, if not the smallest gear" of any goalie during his entire career, who has worn the 2nd smallest gear? The 10th smallest? If you don't know who has worn, e.g. the 20th smallest gear, then how on earth would you know that Brodeur has worn "some of the smallest, if not the smallest gear" of any goalie during his entire career?

Either you have this evidence, or I caught you making an overblown unverifiable B.S. statement. Saying "google it & get back to me" indicates that you have no proof of your assertion. I seriously doubt there is any verfiable evidence recorded anywhere - even at the NHL head office - that would prove any of the statements you have made about Brodeur's equipment.

You may have a hunch, or an assumption, or an opinion... but you have no proof. How many goalies have played a minute in the NHL since Brodeur started? You've watched every single goalie during that time & assessed their equipment size?

In the eight years before Dominik Hasek became their starting goalie, the Buffalo Sabres only won one playoff series. With Hasek, they won 7 playoff series in 8 years. In the 11 years before Martin Brodeur became their starting goalie, the New Jersey Devils won only two playoff series.

With Brodeur they have won 20 playoff series in 14 seasons.

I don't mind the argument, but it applies at least as much to MB30 as it does the Dominator.

Really Statman? It was you who originally made the outlandish remark about Brodeur wearing huge equipment. That would mean it is on you to use facts to back up such a silly claim. Instead you get on me for not only correcting you, but telling you were you can find plenty of information backing it. Quit always crying about everything dude. You are the one amking completely false observations, and yet expect everyone else to run around verifying what you say

Anonymous - Compared to equipment worn by goalies years ago, Brodeur's pads (leg pads, pants, midsection, glove, blocker, everything) are huge. I didn't say he wore the largest padding in the NHL, but since you seem to be hypersensitive towards your hero I guess you perceived it that way. I suppose I should use a different "name" on here so that you read posts a bit more objectively?

I've said repeatedly here & on other posts that all NHL goalies now wear pads that are just too big. Apparently even the highest level of the NHL & many of the players agree with me as they've looked into this closely (they never should've allowed the pads to get out of control in the first place, but that's the NHL for you). It takes a lot of the fun away from the game as players rarely even bother to take long or bad angle shots since there is no chance of a goal... this enables defenders to more easily defend & generally plays into the clutch & grab boring hockey. It also devalues goalie statistics (e.g. causes dolts to believe that a .900 SV% & 10 shutouts now is much better than a .880 & 5 shutouts 25 yrs ago)

Your claims of knowing the details of the padding of most/all goalies who have played in the NHL for the past 15+ yrs, & of Brodeur's pad sizing since 1992(?!) were erroneous. Not surprising, however, as many of your posts are 1/3 insult, 1/3 factually wrong & 100% amusing.

Statman, you still are not making any sense. Compared to goalies years ago? What the heck does that mean in relevance to goalies today? I mean goalie equipment in the 70's was significantly bigger than was in the 40's and 50's, so its not like you are saying much. Comparing equipment amongst goalies today, or even within the past 10-15 it is pretty common knowledge that Brodeur wears small equipment compared to the majority of goalies. This is not sopme scientific thing that needs testing or what ever crap you chose to go off on a tangent about, it is common knowledge. There are Hockey News article which have even used the term "Brodeur standards" for referencing the way equipment should be. Even if you want factual proof, there is plenty of it. You are acting like a little child who cries about being made fun of to take the focus off the fact that you are wrong. It seems like anytime there is anything anti Brodeur, you are the first one to run off and do tons research. Yet you refuse to looking up something as simple as equipment measurements?

Anonymous - By "years ago" I'm referring to any time prior to the inflation of goalie equipment which occurred prior to the mid-90's.

All goalies since that time - including Brodeur - wear significantly bigger equipment than that worn prior to the mid 90's.

[I also disagree that "goalie equipment in the 70's was significantly bigger than was in the 40's and 50's". I don't think the 70's (or 80's) padding was much bigger than in the 40's & 50's.]

So the following quotes are just "common knowledge?

"...it is pretty common knowledge that Brodeur wears small equipment compared to the majority of goalies."

"...since Brodeur has been in the league, he has consistently worn the some of the smallest, if not the smallest gear out of any goalie."

"But to think he has worn anything but the smallest of pads since playing in the league is silly, and shows how little you probably have seen him play."

"He is wearing essentially the same exact equipment he wore in the minors in 1992, and that include everything, not just leg pads."

If you bring up the points, you should be the one doing the research.

"Even if you want factual proof, there is plenty of it."

Ok, where is it?

"You are acting like a little child who cries about being made fun of to take the focus off the fact that you are wrong."

I'm wrong? How could I be wrong if you have no evidence to back up your jerk-off claims?

"It seems like anytime there is anything anti Brodeur, you are the first one to run off and do tons research."

I do? Nope, wrong.

"Yet you refuse to looking up something as simple as equipment measurements?"

Again, it is your job to back up your claims, not mine. If it's such "common knowledge", I'm sure you can back up your claims in no time at all. Instead, you spend all your time arguing with me as to why you shouldn't have to back up your claims. Interesting tactic. Too bad you don't come to this site to add useful comments, rather than unsubstantiated claims about your favourite player(s) & engaging in arguments with others. MY useful comments were in regards to seeing the evidence to back up your claims -- I am genuinely interested in knowing the size of all NHL goalies' equipment & you seemed to have this information -- yet rather than cooperating you turned this site AGAIN into a place for your personal-based attacks.

some of the highlights:"...Brodeur, still wears the same custom Heaton 5 chest protector he wore during the 95-96 season..." "If Brodeur, 6'2 can wear 34 inch pads, why is it necessary for everyone else to wear 36-38 inch pads?"the first 4 or 5 things that came up. because i have to prove that Brodeur wears small pads compared the other goalies to prove a statement you made incorrect haha. Are all these people wrong? Forums, published articles, equipment stores message boards, all seem to be singing the same tune. Yet somehow I am assuming you are going to whine about needing different sources or whatever, all to "protect" the integrity of an unpublished blog lol.

Anonymous, do you have any sources that aren't either anonymous posters putting their opinions online, or a Devils' fan blog?

The G&M article only comments on Luongo, & it pertains to the flaps. It's also an article from 2007. It has nothing to do with Brodeur or the other dozens & dozens of goalies who have played since Brodeur entered the league. You made statements pertaining to Brodeur's relative equipment size as compared to all other NHL goalies from the past 15+ yrs.

Sorry, that doesn't quite prove your previous statements. For instance, it's "common knowledge" that Brodeur is one of the top goalies of all time - I don't disagree that a LOT of people think that way. But, it's not proof that he IS that good.

Perhaps I should just leave you be... that seems to be what other posters here do. Probably would be less noise that way.

By the way, in light of Brodeur's absurd estimation of his effect on shot prevention (post down below), I don't know how much worth his claims are about the size of his equipment compared to other goalies... he may not be "lying" or exaggerating, he just may not know & is making a bad guess.

yea so i guess its just a world wide conspiracy to spread rumors about brodeur wearing smaller equipment than most goalies? every one of those articles, plus tons of others in the links i gave you all mentioned many different things about other goalies, but the one thing consistent was about how brodeur wears small equipment. if there is one thing that was impossible to miss when reading those articles, that was it. however it seems your bias has gotten in the way again.

its also funny you attack the credibility of a neautral fan blog run by a goalie euipment outlet, yet religiously follow a blog such as this one which is even less credible.

I guess if this blog is "even less credible" than blogs written by guys trying to guess what size equipment goalies wear ('from my vantage point in the stands, clearly Joe Schmoe wears a size 36 pant & a medium size cup'... or, yeesh), you might as well disappear from here.

The blogs you provided did not come close to verifying your previous assertions.

Didnt come close to verifying that Brodeur wears small equipment?!? Are you delusional? I guess everybody is just a fan boy and only you truly can tell. And please, before you start whinning again and complaining about snide remarks and personal attacks, realize that it is obvious you are just bitching because you have no evidence to prove he doesnt wear small pads. You made the original statement that he wears huge equipment, and then like the true blogger, run off acting like it is on me to prove the contrary. Talk about a hypocrite.

Either way, you are clearly just a bitter old hag, delusional and at best a confused hypocrite, and that has been made obvious here. I mean, obviously if you can not at the least extrapolate "33-34 inch pads are small compared to the average 36-38 inch ones the average goalie wears" then you are right, there is no sense arguing. Your bias is clearly blinding, and of course, any body who possibly disagrees with you is just a fanboy who can not be right.

Statman: As you know, you and I agree on a lot of things. But you are on the wrong side on this one.

You appear to be completely unaware of the obsession most goalies have with equipment. The guys posting on those message boards know exactly what everyone is wearing. You might not think somebody can watch a goalie play and know the size and model of all of his equipment, but I can assure that there are goalies who can.

Brodeur does wear smaller equipment and that is common knowledge. I think a lot of times people look only at his leg pads and overstate the difference, but he does wear a smaller chest protector as well. His style requires him to move more than most other goalies, so he's willing to trade coverage for agility.

In my books you don't get bonus points or penalty points for having small or large equipment, so it doesn't really matter to me. But if you want to continue arguing the point about Brodeur, I agree with our anonymous friends that the burden of proof is most definitely on you.

"In the 11 years before Martin Brodeur became their starting goalie, the New Jersey Devils won only two playoff series.

With Brodeur they have won 20 playoff series in 14 seasons.

I don't mind the argument, but it applies at least as much to MB30 as it does the Dominator."

No it doesn't. New Jersey went from Mickey Mouse to near-dynasty. There was an awful lot more going on than a simple switch from Terreri to Brodeur.

On the other hand, because of the way they let players walk away throughout the 1990s, Buffalo had about the same overall strength before, during, and after Hasek, and they only had sustained playoff success with the Dominator.

Here are some average team results expressed in points, with adjustments for season length and loser points, compared to playoff series won:

BUF before Hasek: 83 pts, 2 series in 9 yrsBUF with Hasek: 88 pts, 7 series in 8 yrsBUF after Hasek: 87 pts, 4 series in 7 yrs

NJD before Brodeur: 70 pts, 2 series in 11 yrsNJD with Brodeur: 99 pts, 20 series in 14 yrs

While you recognize that goalie are very picky about their equipment, I do not see how you can not at least admit there are minimal advantages in many cases for guy wearing bigger equipment. Sure, as you mentioned, a guy like Brodeur prefers to wear smaller equipment to improve agility, but in the simplest terms, the bigger the equipment, the more area you cover. Maybe the results of this are not tremendous, but you can not deny that simple math would lead one to assume that the more room a goalie takes up, the harder it would be to score on him.

Luongo for instance, is a very good goalie, there is no disputing that. However you really think a guy with the same skills as Luongo would be as effective if he was say, 5'10 and wore size 33 pads, a small chest protector, etc? Goalies have a reputation for being odd, or at the least bit, superstitious and what not, so maybe this is why they are the way the are about their gear, however you really do not think any of the way the are about their equipment has to do with the fact that it gives them an advantage?

"However you really think a guy with the same skills as Luongo would be as effective if he was say, 5'10 and wore size 33 pads, a small chest protector, etc?"

Do you think a guy with the same skills as Chris Pronger would be less effective is he was, say, 5'10", 180 pounds?

The answer is of course he would be less effective. So would Luongo in your hypothetical yet irrelevant scenario. Size is part of what makes Pronger a great player, and size is part of what makes Luongo a great goalie.

I never said it wasn't an advantage to cover more net. Of course it is. But size alone doesn't create a superstar like Luongo - Luongo is what happens when you have both terrific size and terrific athleticism. It's a rare combination.

I just don't understand why it is a negative to have size or to wear large equipment, or why it is somehow admirable or worthy of praise to wear smaller equipment.

Brian Rafalski is shorter than Chris Pronger. That puts him at a disadvantage. I don't think most people give Rafalski bonus points for being short. I certainly don't. And I'm not going to see certain goalies as better just because they are smaller or they voluntarily choose not to maximize their spatial coverage.

It's definitely not a knock on Luongo for being big. But it certainly should be taken into consideration if a guy with less going for him is equally as effective. It happens all the time. Allan Iverson was considered more skilled than guys with similar stats because he was only 6'1. Theo Fleury was considered by many the most complete player in hockey for a while. Roy Jones is considered the best boxer in the world even though he would probably get his ass kicked if he fought heavy weights. Its comparable to the pickup game giant who always gets picked first for basketball. Why, because his size gives him an advantage. Are those guys always the best basketball players? No, but they are usually the most efficient because of their size advantage.

Its not a matter of knocking a player for a natural born advantage, but in terms of equipment, it is something they have control over. Does Manny Legace have to wear size 38's standing 5'10 tall? Does Lundqvist need the 38's or the Michelin Man XXL chest protector? I mean I am sure the medium or large would fully protect him. These guys obviously do it for a reason. Your line on this may be that if it was an advantage then everyone would be doing it. Well for goalies like Brodeur or Osgood, they played the majority of their careers with certain equipment, and it probably would not make sense to change now. But for the newer goalies, it pretty much is all of them. Now a days they are lining up 10 year old kids with 32 inch pads. Compound that with a style of goaltending mostly reliant on blocking percentages of the net that has been popularized over the past 10-15 years, and that obviously accounts for the currently high league average save percentage. Unless of course you actually believe that the current talent at the goaltending position is just as good if not better than it was in the 90's, despite the league doing everything it can to increase scoring minus significantly modifying goalie equipment.

First off, when I referred to Brodeur as wearing “huge” equipment I meant in comparison to goalies prior to the inflation of equipment which occurred in the mid/late 90’s. Unfortunately, this fact proceeded to set off another ignorant tirade by Anonymous.

My concern (which perhaps wasn’t noted in the responses) is with the *width* (not height) of goalie leg pads & the *size* of the blocker & catching hand. I seriously doubt that Brodeur wears leg pads that are narrower than the league maximum, from what I’ve seen & more importantly from noting his public complaints about the NHL reducing the width from 12 to 11 inches. I have the same concerns about the blocker & catching hand. On the other hand, much of this conversation seems to be about pant size, chest protector, shoulder pads, leg pad height etc., which don’t concern me as much.

I played high-level scholarship hockey & had teammates that went on to play minor pro, & I continue to play competitively. When I asked 4 of the goalies I play(ed) with about goalie equipment (who are still very much into watching NHL & still play competitively) they couldn’t agree on the exact size of the equipment.

So… If the guys posting on message boards are so knowledgeable about the exact size of goalie equipment, how come there are varying estimates on the sites? How come one anonymous blogger says the padding is size Y & another says, no I think the padding is such X? Who is right? The last guy who posted a message?

I have not had much objection with this statement concerning CURRENT goalies (but again, what pads are we talking about, & are we talking about width? Height?):

"...it is pretty common knowledge that Brodeur wears small equipment compared to the majority of goalies."

…BUT as for these statements, to go back nearly 20 yrs to 1992(?!) without providing any backup other than to say, “google it” is inadequate:

"...since Brodeur has been in the league, he has consistently worn the some of the smallest, if not the smallest gear out of any goalie."

"But to think he has worn anything but the smallest of pads since playing in the league is silly, and shows how little you probably have seen him play."

"He is wearing essentially the same exact equipment he wore in the minors in 1992, and that include everything, not just leg pads."

Sorry, but to point to some supposedly knowledgeable anonymous bloggers who have eye-balled someone’s equipment from watching the big screen TV just doesn’t cut it for me, especially if the claim is going back nearly 20 yrs & supposedly compares Brodeur to the dozens & dozens of other NHL goalies who have played during that time. It's just not reasonable to accept that some anonymous blogger knows the exact relative size of all of Brodeur's equipment from 1992 (or earlier) to date.

In any event, it has always been obvious to me that Brodeur does not wear the largest pads in the NHL & as I have said more than once I was referring to his “huge” pads in terms of comparisons to the pre-mid90’s equipment. If Anonymous could only make non-hostile comments (backed up with research or at least with a neutral “it’s my opinion that…” kind of statement) then I doubt we’d have to waste our time with so many responses & general escalation of posts. But, I suspect he likes it that way.

And, "Compared to equipment worn by goalies years ago, Brodeur's pads (leg pads, pants, midsection, glove, blocker, everything) are huge. I didn't say he wore the largest padding in the NHL,..."

I'm not sure why you're twisting this around, other than you become incensed when Brodeur is subject to criticism. Numerous times you've been caught exaggerating &/or telling outright lies. CG could probably write whole posts on your corrected 'submissions'.

I asked for was some proof of Brodeur's relative equipment size dating back to 1992. All I received was a "google it!" & insults.

I stand by what I said. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Playing hockey at a high level provides one with unique insights. It's too bad you were never good enough to play... you wouldn't have lasted 20 seconds on the ice with me with a mouth like that.

More crying? Big Surprise. And I though you said that those who actually play the game do not actually have the best judgments on how to evaluate. Or does that also change depending on what you are trying to argue? You were clearly caught talking about something you know nothing about, and are now just lying to cover up your obvious ignorance.

"I just don't understand why it is a negative to have size or to wear large equipment, or why it is somehow admirable or worthy of praise to wear smaller equipment."

Couldn't agree more. I think that every goalie in the NHL has to be using whatever equipment helps them perform best. They'd be fools not to. There are Stanley Cups, individual awards, and millions of dollars at stake. I'm sure if bigger pads would help Brodeur he'd be switching to bigger pads.

Hey statman, what are you not getting here? Let me re-emphasize what your buddy CG stated:

"Statman: As you know, you and I agree on a lot of things. But you are on the wrong side on this one."

or

"Brodeur does wear smaller equipment and that is common knowledge. I think a lot of times people look only at his leg pads and overstate the difference, but he does wear a smaller chest protector as well. His style requires him to move more than most other goalies, so he's willing to trade coverage for agility."

.....

So again, you are asking me to prove something that has already been both proven, and stated as common knowledge, in order to hide the fact that you blatantly got caught in a lie about Brodeur wearing huge pads. The burden of proof is not on me here, you were the one caught making false statements, and you responded to being called out by telling me I needed to prove something that seemed entirely obvious to everyone but yourself.

Why dont you at least stick to bullshitting about how you meant pad width or whatever crap you tried coming up with hahaha?

Anonymous - yeesh, I see your mom let you back on the computer... weeks later & you're still arguing the same things... you either can't understand what I've typed or you purposefully like to argue. Either way, it's getting very tiring & indicative of some sort of disorder perhaps.

I asked you to prove the statements regarding NHL goalies' pad sizes going back to 1992. No one has provided this proof. Not you, not CG... not even 100's or 1,000's of anonymous posters on goalie equipment sites. It's certainly not "something that has already been both proven, and stated as common knowledge..."

Re-read what I've typed. Brodeur wears huge pads. All NHL goalies do now. Perhaps you're too young to have watched any hockey prior to 10 yrs ago, but today's goalies (including Brodeur) where pads that are much bigger than 1988 or 1992 etc. NHL goalies.

I at no time said Brodeur wore the largest pads in the NHL. But he wears at least "regulation" size pads, all of which are larger than what was considered "regulation" 15-20 yrs ago. Same for all other goalies.

Go find where I said that Brodeur wears the largest pads in the NHL.

How many times do I have to repeat the same post, only to have you reply with insults instead of addressing the points?

About Me

I call myself a contrarian because I rely on stats-based analysis over "watching them play", think large sample sizes are more important than "big saves", prefer to rank goalies on save percentage rather than team success, and rate Dominik Hasek as the GOAT. In other words, pretty much the mainstream views of the hockey stats community, but until the far-off day when hockey broadcasters everywhere start talking about ES SV% instead of GAA and wins, I'll have to keep the moniker and my soapbox about the importance of separating a goalie and his team. I am also on Twitter (@tcghockey).